manufactured, prepared and formed expressly to make war by sea or land.

ARTICLE XVIII

All other merchandises and things not comprehended in the articles of contraband explicitly enumerated and classified as above, shall be held and considered as free, and subjects of free and lawful commerce, so that they may be carried and transported in the freest manner by the citizens of both the contracting parties, even to places belonging to an enemy, excepting only those places which are at that time besieged or blockaded; and to avoid all doubt in this particular, it is declared that those places or ports only are besieged or blockaded which are actually attacked by a belligerent force capable of preventing the entry of the neutral.

ARTICLE XIX

The articles of contraband before enumerated and classified which may be found in a vessel bound to an enemy's port shall be subject to detention and confiscation, leaving free the rest of the cargo and the ship, that the owners may dispose of them as they see proper. No vessel of either of the two nations shall be detained on the high seas on account of having on board articles of contraband, whenever the master, captain or supercargo of said vessel will deliver up the articles of contraband to the captor, unless the quantity of such articles be so great or of so large a bulk that they cannot be received on board the capturing ship without great inconvenience; but in this, as well as in all other cases of just detention, the vessel detained shall be sent to the nearest convenient and safe port for trial and judgment according to law.

ARTICLE XX

And whereas it frequently happens that vessels sail for a port or places belonging to an enemy without knowing that the same is besieged, blockaded or invested, it is agreed that every vessel so circumstanced may be turned away from such port or place, but shall not be detained; nor shall any part of her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless, after warning of such blockade or investment from any officer commanding a vessel of the blockading forces, they shall again attempt to enter; but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she shall think proper. Nor shall any vessel of either that may have entered into such port before the same was actually besieged, blockaded or invested by the other, be restrained from quitting such place with her cargo; nor, if found therein after the reduction and surrender, shall such vessel or her cargo be liable to confiscation, but they shall be restored to the owners thereof.

42179-34- -27

115

The Secretary of State (Cass) to the Minister in France (Mason)1

WASHINGTON, June 27, 1859.

SIR: The Government of the United States has learned with much concern that a war has broken out in Europe which threatens in its progress to involve other powers and to become one of the most eventful contests in which modern nations have found themselves engaged. The policy of the United States is essentially Pacific, and upon the present occasion as heretofore, they will faithfully discharge their neutral duties, determined, so far as depends upon themselves, to preserve the most amicable relations with the Powers engaged in hostilities. This determination will be communicated to each of those Powers, and you will make it known to the Government of His Imperial Majesty; and in doing so you will take care and express the confident expectation of the United States, that their rights will be respected by France with equal fidelity. There is reason to apprehend, that in the progress of the war questions affecting the rights of neutral nations upon the ocean may present themselves for consideration, and whose peaceable solution may require discretion as well as forbearance.

The tendency of modern civilization and improvement is to mitigate the calamities of war; and the progress of opinion has introduced important meliorations into the mode of its prosecution, especially upon land. But, unfortunately, similar beneficent changes have not been admitted into maritime wars, so that the code which regulates these contests, yet contains principles of action not adapted to the sentiments of the age in which we live. It is desirable that by the general consent of Independent Powers, modifications should be made in these objectionable principles, so as to accommodate them to the existing state of things, and also that the rights of belligerent nations should be restrained within reasonable limits, and defined with due precision.

This despatch will make known to you the views of this Government concerning these subjects, and it is deemed important that they should be communicated to the Powers of Europe, principally interested in the weighty questions they involve, and that each of those Powers should be requested, not only to coöperate in the effort to accomplish this good work, but also, zealously to exert its influence with other States to induce them to concur in the proposed measure, which appeals by so many grave considerations to the feelings and judgment of the age. The various Representatives of 1MS., Instructions, France, vol. xv, pp. 426–444.

the United States to the European nations will, upon all fitting occasions, explain these views to the Governments to which they are accredited, and will invoke their aid towards the attainment of the objects indicated; and at the same time they will communicate for their information the views entertained by this Country, of those points of International Law presented in this letter which the United States consider established and entitled to the support of all other Powers.

You are desired to carry into effect these instructions at the Imperial Court of France, and to keep this Department informed, from time to time, of the progress and prospects of this attempt to restrict the evils of war, and to enlarge and secure the blessings of peace.

It is obvious, that the Commercial Powers of the world regard with no little solicitude the subject of neutral rights, and there is a general apprehension that pretensions may be advanced during the existing war which may imperil them. And it is equally obvious, from the temper of the age, that the present is no safe time to assert and enforce pretensions on the part of belligerent Powers, affecting the interest of nations at peace, unless such pretensions are clearly justified by the law of nations. Although some of the provisions of that code have become harsh and unacceptable, yet there is a general sense of the duty of submitting to the obligations it imposes. But those obligations, to ensure obedience, must depend, not upon doubtful construction, but upon clearly expressed language, defining with reasonable precision the rights and duties of the Independent parties in the relations existing between them. It is unfortunate that various claims have been advanced and enforced by belligerent Powers in the prosecution of wars, for which it would be vain to seek any sufficient justification in the law of nations, and this consideration adds to the importance of some acceptable arrangement, by which this source of apprehension may be removed, and all danger of collision avoided by clearly defining the rights of the parties in. all doubtful cases.

If the belligerent powers should substitute their own views for the fair provisions of the general law, the most serious consequences may be apprehended. It becomes all prudent governments engaged in hostilities to take into consideration the actual condition of public sentiment, whenever measures of doubtful character are proposed, and satisfy themselves, not only that they are theoretically right, but that they are also practically expedient.

There are three principal subjects, connected with the rights of belligerent and neutral Powers, which require the dispassionate consideration of all governments, desirous of preventing the most seri

ous complications. These relate to the condition of an enemy's property found on board the vessel of a friend, and to the system of blockades and contraband of war. With respect to the two last, the United States consider it of the utmost importance that they should be so regulated and defined by general consent as to leave no doubt respecting the questions they embrace, when these call for practical adjustment.

With respect to the protection of the vessel and cargo by the flag which waves over them, the United States look upon that principle as established, and they maintain that belligerent property on board a neutral ship is not liable to capture; and from existing indications they hope to receive the general concurrence of all commercial powers in this position. Whatever difference of opinion may have heretofore prevailed upon this subject, it is certain that the claim forcibly to enter a neutral vessel and to seize the goods found there, upon the allegation of their being the property of an enemy was first urged at a period when the passions of belligerents were little restrained by the dictates of humanity or religion, and when the question how an enemy could be injured, or rather how his goods could be seized, was a much more acceptable object of research, than why a friend should be spared. Almost from the first attempt to incorporate this doctrine into the maritime code of the world it has been denounced by eminent publicists as fallacious in principle and unjust and dangerous in practice. And the repugnance to it has gone on increasing till its advocates have almost disappeared. I believe that every modern commercial nation has practically repudiated it by entering into treaty stipulations, either temporary or permanent, providing for its abandonment, and some of them as the Baltic States, by the league known as the armed neutrality, and by forcible resistance. The opposition of Holland to it has been almost unremitted. The principal powers engaged in the Crimean War, Great Britain, France, and Russia, by formal public declarations avowed their adherence to the doctrine of immunity and their determination to respect it, France and Russia absolutely and without limitation of time, and Great Britain "for the present"; but for a reason equally applicable to all times hereafter, and which will at all times call for similar concurrence. This measure is adopted, says the British declaration, "To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all unnecessary obstruction," &c. Experience has well shown the justice of this designation, and the wisdom of this precautionary arrangement. No disposition has been manifested, by any of the States relinquishing this pretension to resume its exercise, nor is it to be expected, that if such an effort were made it would be tamely submitted to. Contested and invidious powers are not to be thus authoritatively abandoned and then again called into service at the

interest or caprice of any nation. The Countries engaged in the pending war have adopted a much wiser policy. They hold on to the power of the flag to protect both vessel and cargo from all violation, and have proclaimed by public declarations their determination to respect the principle of exemption so happily established. And well is it, in the general interest, that this tribute has been rendered to the opinions of the age. The stopping of neutral vessels upon the High Seas, their forcible entrance, and the overhauling and examination of their cargoes, the seizure of their freight at the will of a foreign officer, the frequent interruption of their voyages, by compelling them to change their destination, in order to seek redress, and above all the assumption of jurisidiction by a foreign armed party over what has been aptly termed the extension of the territory of an independent state, and with all the abuses which are so prone to accompany the exercise of unlimited power, where responsibility is remote these are indeed serious "obstructions" little likely to be submitted to in the present state of the world without a formidable effort to prevent them. Such pretensions necessarily lead to the establishment of a police upon the great highway of nations, to the transfer of jurisdiction over its own vessels from the country to which it belongs to other Powers who may exercise it for their own purposes. Far better would it be to encourage the freëst system of Commercial intercourse, both in peace and war than to encounter the calamities which would be sure at this day to attend the attempt to revive this claim to obstruct the trade of the world. This government is satisfied that no such design is meditated, and, under the circumstances, the United States feel justified in considering the freedom of neutral vessels from interruption when carrying belligerent property an established principle of intercommunication which ought to be respected as such by all commercial nations.

But there is another aspect, under which this subject presents itself, and which confirms this Government in the resolution it has formed, and in the expectation that other powers will cordially concur in its views. By the declaration of the Paris Conference in its sitting of April 16, 1856, it was announced, on behalf of all the States who might become parties to that act, that "The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war."

This mutual agreement protects the property of each of those States, when engaged in hostilities from capture on board a neutral vessel by an enemy a party to the same act.

It is not necessary that a neutral power should have announced its adherence to this declaration [of Paris] in order to entitle its vessels to the immunity promised: Because the privilege of being protected is guaranteed to belligerents coparties to that memorable act, and protects their property from capture wherever it is found